Nigeria - "a mere geographical expression?" or a matter of definition

 Obi Nwakanma



In the last ten years since the faction of the Nigerian military in uniform withrew to the b arracks and handed power to its retired fation, the debate about the future of Nigeria has raged. It is a debate that has been at the roots of the Nigerian enterprise since its formation in 1914, and since its political independence as a nation within the commonwealth in 1960, and since its putative claims as a sovereign republic in 1963: the question has been "what is Nigeria." Obafemi Awolowo called it "a mere geographical expression." This statement - "mere geographical expression" - is semantically meaningless since it fails to convey its particulars. But it hints at the fact that "Nigeria" is simply a named but indistinct entity. Yet, this is entirely curious given that nothing exists until it is named. Many, often playing the game of the the naked emperor, often tend to over analyse and over interpret the significance of this remarkably ineloquent definition of Nigeria. Nigeria as a nation began in 1914, the result of the amalgamation of conquered peoples and principalities subdued to the higher will of nation. Nigeria is thus, in the history of nations, but a mere babe. It is not even a teenager yet. It is crawling and teething. But to say it is without being is to use the terms "mere geographical expression."

Now, thye trouble with Nigeria is that is that wto spirits dwell within it: one, is the dying but equally vigorous spirit of the dead "empires" and "kingdoms" and "city states" that were subdued and brought into the new nation. Romantic adherents to this lost "empires"s still insist on sustaining old loyalties gto these primordial and really useless, and largely symbolic kindoms with their Oonis, Sultans, Obas, etc. One of the inevitable movements in the evolution of the nation of Nigeria will be to permanently abolish such fictitious empires and direct attention to the new myth of nation. It was this myth of the "volk" that politicians like Awolowo relied upon to create the ideas of "nations within nations" in which being Yoruba or Igbo or Edo or Fulani was transcendent rather than complimentary to being Nigerian. You would often hear the paradoxical claim, "you cannot be a good Nigerian until you re a good Yoruba." This is of course hogwash. There is nothing evil about being Igbo or Yoruba or Ijo etc, but within the fundamental charter of Nigeria's sovereignty from Britain - its Republican constitution is the very fundamental, modern idea of being in nation and being in history - it is to be "individual." In other words, it does not matter whether you are Igbo or Yoruba or Hausa, equality and freedom is as guaranteed as individual responsibility. The rights of the individual therefore includes the right of life, of movement, of association, of conscience, to vote and be voted for, and the freedoms that confer dignity to anyone, whether he is Pius Adesanmi living in Yagba or Yemetu or Agenebode or Owerrinta. It is the full rights of citizsenship.

Anyone who prevents that right breaks the fundamental charter of nation. It is an important aspect of this right that Awolowo sought to challenge when he thoroughly misunderstood the meaning of federalism. He was speaking more to a Bantustan nationhood when he declared, "the west for the westerners, the north for the northerners, the East for the Easterners and Nigeria for all of us." Perhaps, indeed, it was not that Awo misunderstood federalism, just that his followers misunderstood his attempts to simplify it, by talking about state rights and the principle of the devolution of powers. But what Awo did not clarify is the meaning of the "westerner" since the political west included even Igbo communities right by the banks of the Niger. Awo also did not take into consideration the nature of the modern nation beyond its affiliations in the "volk," which made it nececssary to fully dismantle all elements that seemed distinctly conflictual with the modern nation - like his support for the "traditional" monarchical institutions of the Yoruba with whom he created what Biodun Jeyifo might call "arrested modernity" or "arrested decolonization." This has haunted the full formation of Nigeria from ikts inception. It is also remarkable to me that Awoists like Dr. Mobolaji Aluko act, vote and affirm the aims of the Democrats here in the US, but given their positions on Nigeria and within the Nigerian context, he acts more like a Tea-Party Republican, on issues of state rights. Indeed, Awo would ave been, were he American, a Republican.  Yet in the Nigerian context, those who have not carefully studied his politics ascribe all kinds of liberal and "progressive" ideas to him. This is not true.

But back to the meaning of Nigeria: Nigeria is a modern nation and registered in the Assembly of nations, until it becomes like Somalia, ungovernable. But even in its ungovernability, Somalia remains geographically intact, and may either be reconstituted by force or absorbed by a higher entity also by force. There have been an attempt to reorganize Nigeria through a civil war. It failed and it is important to mark the anxieties that have followed that failed attempt. But that anxiety will settle in the next two or more generations who will not recollect the war, and who will be confronted by a new anxiety: of being and nothingness - in other words, the existential conflict that afflicts a generation that will give up orthodox religion (they would have had a surfeit of it through their parents and would have seen its hollow and unsatisfying end) and the overwhelming meaning of living in the increasing margins of the postcolony. They will try to make sense of their new urbanity, for there have never been any other time in modern history that a diverse range of people are meeting and knowing themselves and living more intimately together in the space of the nation such as now. They will be guided more by class and economic questions rather than by sub-national or ethnic affiliations. So, all those who think that Lagos will "revert" to the Edo or the Yoruba will have to explain what that means exactly in the context of the nation. Indeed same goes for complex conurbations like Aba-Port-Harcourt, Kano, Jos, etc. We must see the current claims of the moment as the last acts of dissapearing communities which are being replaced by a new, more overwhelming national consciousness. There are those who say Nigeria has too many "nations" within it to fully function. It will not be the first or the only. There are many old nations with "nations" within them. My example will be a very old country like Ethiopia with many ethnicities -the Oromo, the Amhara, the Somali, the Guraje, the Tigray, the Wolata, etc. As for Atueyi's question about Hong-Kong and China: the example is not apt since Hong Kong was returned to China by the Brits at the fullness of the treaty of protection. The more apt question and example should be about Taiwan and China with their remarkable histories, and Taiwanese assertion of independence. With Lagos, the issue will be as complex, in the event that a succesor state other than the Federation of Nigeria lays a claim upon it. Its documents of cession in 1861 as well as it status as a colony ceded to Nigeria as a federal territory at the moment of amalgamation and independence will all come to play. But, we are dealing at the realms of speculation in this regard.






At this time and stage of the Nigerian project, it appears that it is well understood by all Nigerian patriots that Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s statement that “Nigeria is a mere geographical expression” was a “Call To Duty” at a time of challenge and uncertainty in the geographical location now well established as a sacrosanct and bona fide nation. In fact, Chief Awolowo was in the fore-front in the odyssey to Consummate and Stabilize the nation, by working with founding patriots such as Zik, Balewa, Ahmadu Bello, Mike Okpara, Enahoro, etc, and the nation’s stabilizers such as  Yakubu Gowon, Obsanjo, Musa Yar’Adua, Ekwueme, Ukiwe, Bola Ige, Danjuma, Murtala, Joe Garba, Ogbemudia, and several others. So any honest and patriotic Nigerian reviewer MUST evaluate Chief Awolowo’s words and efforts in the proper context to be productive. Awo played his leadership role in establishing the nation of Nigerian, with nobility, courage and a great sense of responsibility; and he should be APPLAUDED and CELEBRATED, not caricatured by frequent allusion to a no-issue.



Besides, at this time of the Nigerian enterprise, the challenge is DEVELOPMENT, as should be evident in progress in Critical sectors, especially key infrastructures such as regular electricity, road networks, mass transit system and self-reliance in food production. Progress in these key areas of national development will achieve two vital milestones: first, provide the foundational infrastructural base to stimulate and unleash the creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship of Nigerians, and set the stage for industrialization and true international recognition in production and world power status (I bet Nigeria will become the 9th Member of a New G9!); and second, progress in development will engender the ELUSIVE national unity Nigerians continue to debate, since national grids of road networks, mass transits, and other infrastructures will provide a NEW SET OF COMMON INTERESTS for all Nigerians, to adore, manage together, maintain, preserve and PROTECT! This is what National unity is all about!



That said, it is unfortunate that Nigeria still lacks a CRITICAL MASS of Visionary and Purposeful Leaders who don’t have to be Perfect! The SEARCH GOES ON! Take care. JUI (providing the vision for a Developed and United Nigerian Nation as envisaged by the founding patriots!)








It is almost madness that Awo's statement  ("Nigeria is a mere geographical expression") at age 38 in  a 1947 book,  BEFORE Nigeria's Independence, before he attended ENDLESS Constitutional Conferences and Independence preparations starting in 1954 or so, before he became Leader of Opposition at the Federal Level in 1960, before he was Finance Minister 1967-71, before he ran for President (twice) in 1979 and 1983, and before he died in 1987, can still be quoted back to him endlessly as if it was his epithet against the impossibility of Nigeria transcending a "mere geographical expression", as if it is his curse on Nigeria.

Na wa o!

Obi Nwakanma says that I am a Nigerian Awoist and Tea-Party Republican, but an American Democrat.  All I know is I am a Social Democrat, and if Awo was a Social Democrat - as I believe he was - then we are/were both Social Democrats.

My admiration for Awo is confined to the POLITICAL AND PERSONAL DISCIPLINE that he exuded, the SUCCESS and BODY OF SPEECHES that he left behind, the CONCERN that he showed for those he ruled over and READINESS to explain his thought process to them, and the IMPRESSION he left in the minds of those who worked with him closely.  I don't even know all of what Awoism stands for, but if it meant Social Welfarism - and I suspect what people mean as Awoism is his wish for political division of Nigeria into ethnic-based regions or states - then I am an Awoist.

But more than anything, I SUPPORT a TRUE FEDERALISM in which as much power as possible is devolved to whatever smaller regions there are (however determined), with local control of resources.  If that is Awoism, then I am an Awoist.

T'okan, t'okan....

Now let somebody tell me what ZIkism is, or AhmaduBelloism, or MaCauleyism. ...

As an American citizen, I subscribe arduously to the right of the individual for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the responsibility of the individual to others and to government as determined through regular free, fair and credible elections, and the responsibility of government to ensure the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people within the US borders, particularly those least able to held themselves or most prone to oppression - Children, Women, Minorities and the Physical/Mentally Challenged.

And that is why I am a Democrat, and not a Tea-Party Republican.


And there you have it.



Bolaji Aluko






Now, Awo who is a god, made a statement which does not pass into the narrative that those peddling this revisionism wants us to accept, then an excuse has to be invented for his age and the time of his utterance.

Another example of Bolaji Aluko and his compulsive dishonesty is here at play.

When he accuses Ojukwu of being immature in his decision to defend his people, he never cut the guy a slack in relation to his age and the circumstances surrounding his decisions.

In Bolaji's world and that of his co-wayfarers on this highway of cant: what is gravy for the goose is a luxury unaffordable to the gander. Ha che na mmadu bu ewu.

And he has the effrontery to accuse others of dishonesty; an ocean he swims in.

E jikwa m ogu!!!

Wonders shall never end.


Franklyne Ogbunwezeh